Do you know what that actually means? Engineers are just more valuable to that company than team leads. Where did this myth that team leads, managers, and C-type executives are somehow more valuable than the "guy on the floor" come from? Both are equally necessary, but if there are more team lead in the world than engineers in a esoteric or hot-of-the-presses technology, then quite simply the team lead is less valuable to the business, and doesn't deserve that level of pay. If all that matters to the team lead is money, then clearly he shouldn't have accepted a promotion to team lead, and instead should have stayed an engineer and spent his time learning new technology, as it is paid better in this case.
It was an estimation based on the extremely low number of people who actually do so currently. Given the fact that you didn't even name what charity you are implying you currently give to tells me I was correct.
Oscar Wilde was indeed witty, but if you can't speak for yourself please do be quiet when the adults are talking.
I suppose you think implying that I am a child and have nothing useful to say to say in a conversation of "adults" is incredibly original - and, seriously, what "child" quotes Oscar Wilde? I could come up with something original, but then you would have merely attempted to distract people by asking what the hell do I, an anonymous person on the internet, know? All your statements are merely a smoke screen to distract people from the fact that you can not actually refute Oscar Wilde's quote.
Except that claiming weather is not climate is as misleading as claiming weather is climate. Climate is influenced by weather over a long period of time, and weather is the result of the current climate. The two are clearly related, and better prediction of one assists in the prediction of the other.
What people do not understand is the poor weather prediction does not necessarily equate to poor climate prediction. Extremely bad weather prediction for a day, or a week, or even a season or a year is an aberration, evidence that we don't understand all the specifics of weather. It doesn't mean we can't get a good idea of what happens to the climate. It does, however, make a difference depending on the scale of the climate prediction. If a prediction of the climate is made for a year out, and the weather prediction is wrong for four of those months, the climate prediction has a higher possibility of being wrong.
Since climate predictions are dependent on weather predictions, and when those weather predictions turn out to be untrue (as has happened with some of the climate models), it does make the climate prediction as shaky as the weather prediction. At the moment, there is too much politics and problems with the previous IPCC study to depend on it. So redo it. Provided I recall correctly, it is a ten year study, and the predictions of problems were somewhere around ten thousand years out. I think we've got some time to verify the original study (which is good science). Will that convince everyone? No, but it is a start.
If you really want to fund a replacement for oil, why are you waiting on the government to force you to donate? Why don't you just do it now? Perhaps this quote describes what you really want:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
- Oscar Wilde
I haven't heard it from the graduates, but I have read about it in various management books used in those programs. It isn't even a "hidden secret". Everything a manager does is measured against what makes the most profit for the least expenditure. If stealing from someone and surviving a lawsuit is "measured" as cheaper and less risky than developing an original title or licensing the original title, then that's their mandate. All of them will openly admit morality has no place in business.
If you manage to get your manager to agree to some sort of compensation (stock sounds like the best for your specific situation), make sure you get it on paper (or in the case of stock, up front). There are good managers who do live up to their word, but good managers will also understand that the bad managers force you to request some sort of backing to his word.
It isn't uncommon for people to work longer hours at a startup, but there is always an incentive. In some cases, it is being a part of something you see as potentially grand. In other cases, it is a chance to become independent from other companies. In other cases, it is an interest in getting the company to do well so their stock prices will increase. If you boss wants his people to work longer work days, then he has no choice but to provide them some incentive, or all the bad things others have highlighted will start happening. You can point to things like the EA Spouse and foundation of Activision by former Atari employees as reasons why he needs to provide some modicum of incentive.
If that were true, that would mean they could charge the newspapers with treason.
Actually newspaper reporters and editors have been charged with treason in the past, and probably will be again in the future, in nations around the world. Newspaper reporters traveling with the military, for instance, are enjoined and warned about transmitting their locations over broadcast. Geraldo Rivera was kicked out of just such an assignment for drawing a map in the sand for the audience.
I won't comment on other countries, but in America it has been found time and time again that American news reporters are not guilty of treason if they publish classified documents they did not solicit (and Assange isn't even American, so even that tenuous claim doesn't hold). The American government knows this, so pursuing Assange is actually wasting taxpayers' money. Personally, I think any such official ordering such an act should be removed from office due to incompetence.
It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
This is not true. It is a fact that he was accused of what I described. It is also a fact that he was not accused of "sex by surprise", as no such crime exists. Thus in relation to "the accusations against him," one statement is bullshit and the other is not. Whether the allegations hold up doesn't change what he was accused of.
It is true. If you are going to be pedantic, none of what you quoted is a crime either. It is instead a list of things a news organization claims a person said. I don't find a summary of a quote (in some cases, taken from another report) to be particularly reliable in accuracy. Provided I am remembering correctly, the current list of charges is one count of rape and two counts of sexual molestation, all without details of what act solicited which charge at the moment, and this has only occurred after one Swedish prosecutor dropped the case, one of the alleged victims dropped their charges, and Assange was given permission to leave the country. Hopefully most people can understand my credulity and reluctance to believe anything I read in regards to this at the moment.
Except that he is a citizen of a foreign country, and not on American soil, therefore no American law applies to him. That is the only defense he needs, and it is ironclad (that isn't to say the American government will care). I don't know that I agree with his actions, but I for damn sure don't agree with my leaders' responses, and I will be giving them an earful if they pursue this.
I would point out that you are merely quoting the "she said" portion of "he said, she said". There is no more proof that is what actually occurred than what he said. It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
Frankly, that's bullshit. McD's isn't eaten because it taste amazing, its eaten because its quick, comparatively cheap, and most people don't find it to be completely disgusting. It isn't expected to be five-star food.
I am more than willing to debate that point with you. While I've grown to think that the Constitution has problems with how the laws are presented, and that it might be better to break the Constitution into two parts (one which states the law explicitly, and another which states the reasoning behind the laws in part one), the Second Amendment is quite frankly the clearest law of the Bill of Rights. The intent is very clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms (notice it says arms, not guns) shall not be infringed. If you interpret it as written, then yes, Abrams tanks should absolutely be available to private citizens. Honestly, I fear people owning Abrams tanks far less than I fear people owning handguns. Abrams tanks are built for a specific purpose and cost far more than most people can afford. However, coalitions of private citizens have a better chance of owning one, and the coalition will only deploy it when threatened and they have need to punch holes in the sides of other tanks.
Guns are different than most conventional warfare weapons like tanks. Tanks are designed to destroy another armies tanks and soldiers. They aren't as good for robbing individuals, they aren't inconspicuous for selling drugs or stolen merchandise, and so on. Guns are useful because they enable one person to easily kill another person. The problem is the reasoning behind the killing. There are many viewpoints about guns, and very little information on which ones are "right". People use them to hunt, people use them for self-defense, people use them to commit murder and other crimes, and so on.
The United States holds the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of the country. Gun ownership clearly falls into the "life" category. They can be used to take life, or to prevent the taking of life. It doesn't matter who is doing the taking, nor the reason. The question simply boils down to this: does an individual have the right to own a gun to prevent someone else from taking their life? The Constitution explicitly say yes. That brings up other problems to deal with, but quite simply private gun ownership helps far more than it hurts.
That is a good clarification, but violence is not limited to conservatives. Republican politicians have had just as much violence done to them as Democratic politicians have. Both sides use such language, and the problem is that they use such language when it is not called for - in other words, hyperbole. However, as you say, it is unfortunately the cost to preserve the freedom of speech we have in this country.
Which means they are instantly accessible to anyone in your house. The intruder will have no more trouble finding them.
While I agree with most of what you said, that statement is complete bullshit. An intruder doesn't know where the weapons are, and has to hunt around for them. Keeping one gun in a convenient location can be a good thing, provided everyone around is well trained in its use (for instance, if no children are in the house). There is no question it is a trade-off. Private citizens generally don't need that level of access to their guns. Police officers, celebrities, politicians, and the like generally do.
Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
...and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
First, provide a citation that proves countries without adequate gun controls have citizens that think killing people is more acceptable. Second, you claim that guns are basically the sole enablers of crime and then you point out the fact that knife crime exists anyway, so your arguments don't even have an internal consistency.
I'm astonished that line of drivel got modded interesting. You clearly know nothing of America beyond what your local news channels tell you (to be fair, Americans generally know nothing of other countries beyond what their local new channels tell them). America does not have some "model citizen" that is representative of the population as a whole. In general, we are quite fragmented. We have many, many citizens that hate guns and want to see them banned at the first opportunity. The reason they aren't is because of the Constitution of the United States which explicitly prevents that. These are also the same people that are willing to shut down an airport because a child got through security without the body scan or fondling. The Americans that are against gun bans are also against the invasion of our privacy by the government. In fact, that is why they fight so viciously to keep guns: so they can be turned against those government officials who want to invade our privacy and restrict our rights. That is why the Constitution explicitly prevents the government from banning guns.
Gun bans should be entirely off the table at the moment. The Constitution of the United States explicitly prevents the federal government from banning guns, and for very good reason: so guns can be used to protect the citizens against an aggressive government. If you want to ban guns, what you should be talking about is an amendment to the Constitution to grant the federal government that power.
That depends on how you define "drunk". If you define it as anyone who blows over.08, then you are incorrect, as the machines are not accurate nor is the arbitrary line of.08 (I point out that it was originally.15, but that apparently wasn't politically good enough, so it was lowered).
To be perfectly honest, I don't think your statement is accurate under any definition. I've never seen any evidence that states there is some point where a person is so intoxicated as to be incapable of driving. I suspect there are some people who would expire from alcohol poisoning before losing the ability to drive (though that number is likely to be incredibly small). Practically speaking, what does it matter whether a person is driving drunk? Isn't is more important to determine whether a person is simply capable of driving, regardless of the reason?
Given that I was under ten years old for most of the 80s, I'd really like to see those scientific studies. Honestly, America is so sue-happy right now, practically anything and everything I see from a company's lawyers I assume is covering their company's ass, and not in any way representative of actual scientific study. I would point out that most (if not all) cellular companies have similar warnings for their cell phones absolving them of any health issue due to radio waves (despite the lack of any valid scientific study linking radio waves to health issues).
Finally, I'd like to point something out that Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: a corporation is not a person. Furthermore, a corporation behaves like a sociopath. This means that things that benefit a corporation are not the same that benefit society as a whole. Remember that next time a corporate lobbyists argues that what's good for them is good for the country.
Apparently, you don't know many Americans. Most people aren't even aware corporations are equated the rights of a person. The most visible ones who think that are the American government, which I'm going to have to point out something that most non-Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: they are not representative of the general American population.
I also have to point out that the job of the American government is not the ensure that everything that happens benefits society. The American government guarantees freedom (or is suppose to). That is the basis of the idea that corporations are people. I don't agree with that corporations should be given all rights of a person, but I understand and agree with the foundation of it.
I wish I had mod points for that statement. Essentially, our only options in this case are two evils, corporate control or government control. There is too much money to be made through screwing with the traffic to trust corporations, but there is too much political interference in America and the world to trust the politicians (the recent UN summit to censor the internet is particularly relevant to this point).
Re:There is no expectation of privacy
on
Recording the Police
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You seem to have forgotten that in America we have something called Freedom of Speech. This includes saying I disagree with the government, and I'm going to work to change it in any way possible. America was born out of "terrorist" actions performed by "common criminals" and "dissidents", I apparently must also remind you.
I will agree with one thing Elbereth said. Don't stock up on ammo and fertilizer. Learn to make it yourself. That way, if the government does go totalitarian, you aren't dependent on others.
I would point out that everything you just said works in reverse as well. Will we have more dead citizens if they have to worry about trials even when they feel justified? Say, during defending a home invasion? What about a car-jacking? A kidnapping?
If courts are not the right options for police officers, then why are they the right option for private citizens?
I haven't dated a police officer, but I have been close friends with one. I know all too well that it is far too easy for us (and most especially, juries) to be critical of both police officers and private citizens actions that took place in the heat of the moment. Very few people know what it is like to have to make life-or-death decisions on instinct (I know, due to both martial arts training and having survived two cars getting totaled out from under me). It is basically impossible to convey that until you've been there. However, what is important here is that both police officers and private citizens are measured under the same rules. While private citizens may not have to deal with the amount of crap officers do day to day, officers have an increase in power that requires them to have the ability to deal with those instances. If not, then they shouldn't be doing that job.
Honestly, I think we let police do those jobs for far too long. They really shouldn't do it for more than a couple of years and then be "retired" or some such with a community's grateful thanks. It would bring up other problems (maintaining an appropriate staff is the obvious one), but it would pretty much immediately fix the "good old boys" network, as well as some of the psychological problems that can come from having to deal with high-stress situations all the time. The devil is in the details, but I feel it is something that should at least be explored.
And you can point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the point where the "American Dream" for middle and working class Americans was blown the fuck up in favor of a "supply-side" economy where each generation could expect a little less than the previous, unless you were a member of the lucky 2% who did fantastically well.
So what is the alternative? Follow the Democrats where the whole of each generation can expect a little less?
I have to be the voice of reason here. There is no possible way for every person to have a better life than their parents. The vast majority of people are going to do basically the same as their parents. A lucky few are going to do better. Some are going to do worse. While Republican policies are many times too much in favor of corporations, at least they give people the opportunity to reach that top two percent.
A simple way to sum up the policies of the two major political parties in America is this: Republicans give everyone an equal chance to rise to the top, but if you fail, you are left to your own devices. Democrats are willing to make everyone equal economically, but aren't willing to let those who work harder than others reap rewards.
Practically speaking, both have their pluses and minuses. Each policy exists to some degree in countries that are surviving today, and both have their places. To determine which one belongs in America, though, we must look to the Constitution. Given the the constitution is written with the idea of people being equally free (and therefore responsible for themselves), it seems the original intent leans more Republican today than Democratic. While the Republicans do go too far in robbing the individual of his rights in favor of a corporation, the Democrats rob both individuals and corporations. So its mostly a matter of Republicans being less wrong than the Democrats.
However, do not take away that the answer I am promoting is to vote Republican. After all, being less wrong still means you are wrong. Or to put it another way, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. That is why I vote libertarian/constitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what that actually means? Engineers are just more valuable to that company than team leads. Where did this myth that team leads, managers, and C-type executives are somehow more valuable than the "guy on the floor" come from? Both are equally necessary, but if there are more team lead in the world than engineers in a esoteric or hot-of-the-presses technology, then quite simply the team lead is less valuable to the business, and doesn't deserve that level of pay. If all that matters to the team lead is money, then clearly he shouldn't have accepted a promotion to team lead, and instead should have stayed an engineer and spent his time learning new technology, as it is paid better in this case.
What makes you think I don't?
It was an estimation based on the extremely low number of people who actually do so currently. Given the fact that you didn't even name what charity you are implying you currently give to tells me I was correct.
Oscar Wilde was indeed witty, but if you can't speak for yourself please do be quiet when the adults are talking.
I suppose you think implying that I am a child and have nothing useful to say to say in a conversation of "adults" is incredibly original - and, seriously, what "child" quotes Oscar Wilde? I could come up with something original, but then you would have merely attempted to distract people by asking what the hell do I, an anonymous person on the internet, know? All your statements are merely a smoke screen to distract people from the fact that you can not actually refute Oscar Wilde's quote.
Except that claiming weather is not climate is as misleading as claiming weather is climate. Climate is influenced by weather over a long period of time, and weather is the result of the current climate. The two are clearly related, and better prediction of one assists in the prediction of the other.
What people do not understand is the poor weather prediction does not necessarily equate to poor climate prediction. Extremely bad weather prediction for a day, or a week, or even a season or a year is an aberration, evidence that we don't understand all the specifics of weather. It doesn't mean we can't get a good idea of what happens to the climate. It does, however, make a difference depending on the scale of the climate prediction. If a prediction of the climate is made for a year out, and the weather prediction is wrong for four of those months, the climate prediction has a higher possibility of being wrong.
Since climate predictions are dependent on weather predictions, and when those weather predictions turn out to be untrue (as has happened with some of the climate models), it does make the climate prediction as shaky as the weather prediction. At the moment, there is too much politics and problems with the previous IPCC study to depend on it. So redo it. Provided I recall correctly, it is a ten year study, and the predictions of problems were somewhere around ten thousand years out. I think we've got some time to verify the original study (which is good science). Will that convince everyone? No, but it is a start.
If you really want to fund a replacement for oil, why are you waiting on the government to force you to donate? Why don't you just do it now? Perhaps this quote describes what you really want:
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. - Oscar Wilde
I haven't heard it from the graduates, but I have read about it in various management books used in those programs. It isn't even a "hidden secret". Everything a manager does is measured against what makes the most profit for the least expenditure. If stealing from someone and surviving a lawsuit is "measured" as cheaper and less risky than developing an original title or licensing the original title, then that's their mandate. All of them will openly admit morality has no place in business.
If you manage to get your manager to agree to some sort of compensation (stock sounds like the best for your specific situation), make sure you get it on paper (or in the case of stock, up front). There are good managers who do live up to their word, but good managers will also understand that the bad managers force you to request some sort of backing to his word.
It isn't uncommon for people to work longer hours at a startup, but there is always an incentive. In some cases, it is being a part of something you see as potentially grand. In other cases, it is a chance to become independent from other companies. In other cases, it is an interest in getting the company to do well so their stock prices will increase. If you boss wants his people to work longer work days, then he has no choice but to provide them some incentive, or all the bad things others have highlighted will start happening. You can point to things like the EA Spouse and foundation of Activision by former Atari employees as reasons why he needs to provide some modicum of incentive.
If that were true, that would mean they could charge the newspapers with treason.
Actually newspaper reporters and editors have been charged with treason in the past, and probably will be again in the future, in nations around the world. Newspaper reporters traveling with the military, for instance, are enjoined and warned about transmitting their locations over broadcast. Geraldo Rivera was kicked out of just such an assignment for drawing a map in the sand for the audience.
I won't comment on other countries, but in America it has been found time and time again that American news reporters are not guilty of treason if they publish classified documents they did not solicit (and Assange isn't even American, so even that tenuous claim doesn't hold). The American government knows this, so pursuing Assange is actually wasting taxpayers' money. Personally, I think any such official ordering such an act should be removed from office due to incompetence.
It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
This is not true. It is a fact that he was accused of what I described. It is also a fact that he was not accused of "sex by surprise", as no such crime exists. Thus in relation to "the accusations against him," one statement is bullshit and the other is not. Whether the allegations hold up doesn't change what he was accused of.
It is true. If you are going to be pedantic, none of what you quoted is a crime either. It is instead a list of things a news organization claims a person said. I don't find a summary of a quote (in some cases, taken from another report) to be particularly reliable in accuracy. Provided I am remembering correctly, the current list of charges is one count of rape and two counts of sexual molestation, all without details of what act solicited which charge at the moment, and this has only occurred after one Swedish prosecutor dropped the case, one of the alleged victims dropped their charges, and Assange was given permission to leave the country. Hopefully most people can understand my credulity and reluctance to believe anything I read in regards to this at the moment.
Except that he is a citizen of a foreign country, and not on American soil, therefore no American law applies to him. That is the only defense he needs, and it is ironclad (that isn't to say the American government will care). I don't know that I agree with his actions, but I for damn sure don't agree with my leaders' responses, and I will be giving them an earful if they pursue this.
I would point out that you are merely quoting the "she said" portion of "he said, she said". There is no more proof that is what actually occurred than what he said. It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
Frankly, that's bullshit. McD's isn't eaten because it taste amazing, its eaten because its quick, comparatively cheap, and most people don't find it to be completely disgusting. It isn't expected to be five-star food.
I am more than willing to debate that point with you. While I've grown to think that the Constitution has problems with how the laws are presented, and that it might be better to break the Constitution into two parts (one which states the law explicitly, and another which states the reasoning behind the laws in part one), the Second Amendment is quite frankly the clearest law of the Bill of Rights. The intent is very clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms (notice it says arms, not guns) shall not be infringed. If you interpret it as written, then yes, Abrams tanks should absolutely be available to private citizens. Honestly, I fear people owning Abrams tanks far less than I fear people owning handguns. Abrams tanks are built for a specific purpose and cost far more than most people can afford. However, coalitions of private citizens have a better chance of owning one, and the coalition will only deploy it when threatened and they have need to punch holes in the sides of other tanks.
Guns are different than most conventional warfare weapons like tanks. Tanks are designed to destroy another armies tanks and soldiers. They aren't as good for robbing individuals, they aren't inconspicuous for selling drugs or stolen merchandise, and so on. Guns are useful because they enable one person to easily kill another person. The problem is the reasoning behind the killing. There are many viewpoints about guns, and very little information on which ones are "right". People use them to hunt, people use them for self-defense, people use them to commit murder and other crimes, and so on.
The United States holds the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of the country. Gun ownership clearly falls into the "life" category. They can be used to take life, or to prevent the taking of life. It doesn't matter who is doing the taking, nor the reason. The question simply boils down to this: does an individual have the right to own a gun to prevent someone else from taking their life? The Constitution explicitly say yes. That brings up other problems to deal with, but quite simply private gun ownership helps far more than it hurts.
That is a good clarification, but violence is not limited to conservatives. Republican politicians have had just as much violence done to them as Democratic politicians have. Both sides use such language, and the problem is that they use such language when it is not called for - in other words, hyperbole. However, as you say, it is unfortunately the cost to preserve the freedom of speech we have in this country.
Which means they are instantly accessible to anyone in your house. The intruder will have no more trouble finding them.
While I agree with most of what you said, that statement is complete bullshit. An intruder doesn't know where the weapons are, and has to hunt around for them. Keeping one gun in a convenient location can be a good thing, provided everyone around is well trained in its use (for instance, if no children are in the house). There is no question it is a trade-off. Private citizens generally don't need that level of access to their guns. Police officers, celebrities, politicians, and the like generally do.
Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
...and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
First, provide a citation that proves countries without adequate gun controls have citizens that think killing people is more acceptable. Second, you claim that guns are basically the sole enablers of crime and then you point out the fact that knife crime exists anyway, so your arguments don't even have an internal consistency.
I'm astonished that line of drivel got modded interesting. You clearly know nothing of America beyond what your local news channels tell you (to be fair, Americans generally know nothing of other countries beyond what their local new channels tell them). America does not have some "model citizen" that is representative of the population as a whole. In general, we are quite fragmented. We have many, many citizens that hate guns and want to see them banned at the first opportunity. The reason they aren't is because of the Constitution of the United States which explicitly prevents that. These are also the same people that are willing to shut down an airport because a child got through security without the body scan or fondling. The Americans that are against gun bans are also against the invasion of our privacy by the government. In fact, that is why they fight so viciously to keep guns: so they can be turned against those government officials who want to invade our privacy and restrict our rights. That is why the Constitution explicitly prevents the government from banning guns.
Gun bans should be entirely off the table at the moment. The Constitution of the United States explicitly prevents the federal government from banning guns, and for very good reason: so guns can be used to protect the citizens against an aggressive government. If you want to ban guns, what you should be talking about is an amendment to the Constitution to grant the federal government that power.
So, according to you, speech should be restricted because some nut-case might do something stupid?
That depends on how you define "drunk". If you define it as anyone who blows over .08, then you are incorrect, as the machines are not accurate nor is the arbitrary line of .08 (I point out that it was originally .15, but that apparently wasn't politically good enough, so it was lowered).
To be perfectly honest, I don't think your statement is accurate under any definition. I've never seen any evidence that states there is some point where a person is so intoxicated as to be incapable of driving. I suspect there are some people who would expire from alcohol poisoning before losing the ability to drive (though that number is likely to be incredibly small). Practically speaking, what does it matter whether a person is driving drunk? Isn't is more important to determine whether a person is simply capable of driving, regardless of the reason?
Given that I was under ten years old for most of the 80s, I'd really like to see those scientific studies. Honestly, America is so sue-happy right now, practically anything and everything I see from a company's lawyers I assume is covering their company's ass, and not in any way representative of actual scientific study. I would point out that most (if not all) cellular companies have similar warnings for their cell phones absolving them of any health issue due to radio waves (despite the lack of any valid scientific study linking radio waves to health issues).
To put it another way, [citation needed].
Finally, I'd like to point something out that Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: a corporation is not a person. Furthermore, a corporation behaves like a sociopath. This means that things that benefit a corporation are not the same that benefit society as a whole. Remember that next time a corporate lobbyists argues that what's good for them is good for the country.
Apparently, you don't know many Americans. Most people aren't even aware corporations are equated the rights of a person. The most visible ones who think that are the American government, which I'm going to have to point out something that most non-Americans seem to have a hard time understanding: they are not representative of the general American population.
I also have to point out that the job of the American government is not the ensure that everything that happens benefits society. The American government guarantees freedom (or is suppose to). That is the basis of the idea that corporations are people. I don't agree with that corporations should be given all rights of a person, but I understand and agree with the foundation of it.
I wish I had mod points for that statement. Essentially, our only options in this case are two evils, corporate control or government control. There is too much money to be made through screwing with the traffic to trust corporations, but there is too much political interference in America and the world to trust the politicians (the recent UN summit to censor the internet is particularly relevant to this point).
You seem to have forgotten that in America we have something called Freedom of Speech. This includes saying I disagree with the government, and I'm going to work to change it in any way possible. America was born out of "terrorist" actions performed by "common criminals" and "dissidents", I apparently must also remind you.
I will agree with one thing Elbereth said. Don't stock up on ammo and fertilizer. Learn to make it yourself. That way, if the government does go totalitarian, you aren't dependent on others.
I would point out that everything you just said works in reverse as well. Will we have more dead citizens if they have to worry about trials even when they feel justified? Say, during defending a home invasion? What about a car-jacking? A kidnapping?
If courts are not the right options for police officers, then why are they the right option for private citizens?
I haven't dated a police officer, but I have been close friends with one. I know all too well that it is far too easy for us (and most especially, juries) to be critical of both police officers and private citizens actions that took place in the heat of the moment. Very few people know what it is like to have to make life-or-death decisions on instinct (I know, due to both martial arts training and having survived two cars getting totaled out from under me). It is basically impossible to convey that until you've been there. However, what is important here is that both police officers and private citizens are measured under the same rules. While private citizens may not have to deal with the amount of crap officers do day to day, officers have an increase in power that requires them to have the ability to deal with those instances. If not, then they shouldn't be doing that job.
Honestly, I think we let police do those jobs for far too long. They really shouldn't do it for more than a couple of years and then be "retired" or some such with a community's grateful thanks. It would bring up other problems (maintaining an appropriate staff is the obvious one), but it would pretty much immediately fix the "good old boys" network, as well as some of the psychological problems that can come from having to deal with high-stress situations all the time. The devil is in the details, but I feel it is something that should at least be explored.
And you can point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the point where the "American Dream" for middle and working class Americans was blown the fuck up in favor of a "supply-side" economy where each generation could expect a little less than the previous, unless you were a member of the lucky 2% who did fantastically well.
So what is the alternative? Follow the Democrats where the whole of each generation can expect a little less?
I have to be the voice of reason here. There is no possible way for every person to have a better life than their parents. The vast majority of people are going to do basically the same as their parents. A lucky few are going to do better. Some are going to do worse. While Republican policies are many times too much in favor of corporations, at least they give people the opportunity to reach that top two percent.
A simple way to sum up the policies of the two major political parties in America is this: Republicans give everyone an equal chance to rise to the top, but if you fail, you are left to your own devices. Democrats are willing to make everyone equal economically, but aren't willing to let those who work harder than others reap rewards.
Practically speaking, both have their pluses and minuses. Each policy exists to some degree in countries that are surviving today, and both have their places. To determine which one belongs in America, though, we must look to the Constitution. Given the the constitution is written with the idea of people being equally free (and therefore responsible for themselves), it seems the original intent leans more Republican today than Democratic. While the Republicans do go too far in robbing the individual of his rights in favor of a corporation, the Democrats rob both individuals and corporations. So its mostly a matter of Republicans being less wrong than the Democrats.
However, do not take away that the answer I am promoting is to vote Republican. After all, being less wrong still means you are wrong. Or to put it another way, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. That is why I vote libertarian/constitutional.